More On The Rejection Decision

The Wyndham Leader headline says it all:

Losing By Religion - Muslim teacher refused place at Christian school

You would think the editors ought to be a bit more restrained and cautious about how they slant their piece, but I suppose from the paper's perspective, they are just doing their bit and highlighting an important social and cultural issue.

What this news article captures that The Age didn't, is the response of the trainee teacher at the centre of the furore.

She has apparently lodged a complaint with the Equal Opportunities Commission alleging discrimination, prejudice and unequal employment opportunities.

Her exact words: "I am Muslim, wear a head scarf, and respect all fellow humans regardless of their beliefs, race, or cultural background."

By that, I suppose she means that HCC should accept her as a trainee on her own merits, regardless of its own stated position on its Christian ethos and recruitment policy and the fact that her faith is based on beliefs that are fundamentally at odds with Christianity.

In all the school newsletters I've read, staff vacancies have always been published with this caveat: "We are keen to employ staff members who are able to identify with the Christian foundations, Christian ethos and Christian practice of the College."

I take that to mean that an applicant must either be a Christian or at least agreeable with or open to what the faith is about, in contrast with someone who is a fervent believer of another religion.

According to the Leader report, the trainee teacher chose HCC for her training despite being advised by Victoria Uni (where she is doing a diploma course in secondary education) that HCC had a policy of accepting only student teachers whose values were consistent with the school's.

The trainee says she was not told of any such policy. She chose HCC because it was the school closest to her home and her son's childcare centre, and because HCC offers her specialty subjects (maths and French).

I think 'respect' is a word that cuts both ways. To be respected, you have to show respect. You can't demand it of someone else, or equate getting respect with getting your way. To cry foul because someone says 'no' to you is hardly a positive way to show your respect for another's point of view.

As the Equal Opportunities Commission website puts it - "having others respect our human rights comes with the responsibility that we respect the rights of others."

Interestingly, the Vent Your Spleen (aka forum) section in today's mx contained three responses by commuters/readers who all said the same thing: people who visit or choose to migrate to Australia should assimilate into Australian society and accept its norms, not expect Australians to bend over backwards to accept their ways. The example I found particularly memorable was that if an Aussie (presumably Caucasian) female visits a Muslim country, she would not wear a sleeveless top out of respect for the culture and religion of the host country. Therefore the reverse - that you should not expect special treatment when you are the outsider - should also apply.

There are a lot of gaps in the Leader's reporting of the decision. A lot of it is down to he-said-she-said, which in the case of a polarizing subject like faith, is hardly helpful. I would love to see an objective write-up on the subject, with facts and stats and written records to verify who said what and when, but I'm not sure if it'll happen anytime soon.